In the 54 years between 1957, when the Price Anderson Act was passed, and 2011 we have:

• Experienced four melt-downs and one partial melt-down at nuclear power plants,
• An increasing amount of radioactive waste that we really don’t know how to deal with, but must manage for hundreds of years – or thousands.  
• Security Concerns. Sharif Mobley, an American, arrested in Yemen in March, 2010, suspected of being a covert agent of Al Queda connected to Anwar Al Awlaki (CS Monitor), and who, before going to Yemen, worked at nuclear power plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (NJ News Room).

The World Nuclear Association has a detailed summary of the state of the industry (here), at Popular Logistics, We have concluded that a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the system and the risks from existing or future nuclear plants demands a paradigm shift to efficient use of sustainable energy.

The people of Fukushima – and Japan – are concerned that their food is “salted” with radioactive isotopes from the three reactors that melted downs. And they don’t trust their government. They feel it is too trusting of the people in the nuclear power industry (NPR). And we see the same cozy relationship between the regulatory agencies and the regulated industry in the United States. (PopularLogistics).

The “No More Fukushimas” walk from Oyster Creek to Vermont Yankee continues – and it will pass Indian Point today, March 11, 2012 (here).

The Japanese have closed 52 of their 54 nuclear power plants.

In the US, eight plants, from North Carolina to Connecticut were closed in August, 2011 because of Hurricane Irene. Two plants in Virginia were closed because of an earthquake. Fort Calhoun, the plant that was built on the bank of the Missouri River, near Omaha, Nebraska, that was shut down in May, 2011 for refueling and kept off-line due to heavy rains in June 2011 and 9 months later remains shut down. While the distribution of radioactive isotopes is minimal, and mostly tritium, the financial cost (not counting waste cleanup) is $1.0 million per day. These costs will be carried on the shoulders of the ratepayers, not the owners of the plant (here).

When Excelon whined that “upgrading Oyster Creek would cost too much; they would have to close it down,” Gov. Chris Christie said “Ok, then close it down.” The folks in Georgia are not as bold as the Honorable Governor of New Jersey. When Georgia Power said “In order to build two new 1.17 GW reactors at the Vogtle complex, we need to charge ratepayers for construction before we break ground, the NRC said “OK, and here are loan guarantees” (here).

But Georgia is the exception to the rule. Mycle Schneider, describing the Worldwatch Report he wrote on nuclear power last year, said (Press Release / Report):

“The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of this industry is written, Fukushima is likely to introduce its final chapter.”

Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in the foreword to the report, wrote,

“The Fukushima accident has just vaporized the balance sheet of the world’s #4 power company, TEPCO… this … could cost $100-plus billion… with such an unforgiving technology, accidents anywhere are accidents everywhere.”

Popular Logistics is a blog. We have the resources to write one or two articles per week, and cover a variety of issues. The professional news media, i.e., The New York Times, National Public Radio are able to commit substantial resources to these issues.

Nuclear Crisis in Japan will lead you to a collection of articles about Japan, Fukushima and the future of nuclear power from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) 

Matthew L. Wald (preceding link to Mr. Wald’s posts on the Green Blog,  Transcripts Show U.S. Confusion Early in Japan Nuclear Crisis ; (on NYTimes.com)

Andrew C. Revkin, Nuclear Risk and Fear, from Hiroshima to Fukushima from the Dot Earth Blog, also of The Times,

Mr. Wald, again,  Sizing Up Health Impacts a Year After Fukushima.

We now are experiencing the effects of four melt-downs and one partial melt-down in the 54 years since the Price Anderson Act was signed. This is four melt-downs too many. This  is one meltdown every 13.5 years, one melt-down or partial melt-down every 11 years. While this is too small for statistical analysis, there have been melt-downs at four of the world’s 440 nuclear power plants. That’s a small number – about 0.9%. But the accidents were and remain catastrophic.

And in addition, nuclear power is expensive in terms of time and money for new plants  (NPR). It’s too expensive for investors given the choice; that’s why Georgia Power asked for – and got – loan guarantees and permission to charge ratepayers in advance for the money to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants (here).

As noted above:

We must understand the dynamics of the system and risks from existing or future nuclear plants and shift the paradigm to efficient use of sustainable energy.

Fukushima reactors, after tsunami

On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster shocked the world. Sadly, the thinkers in the anti-nuclear world were not complete surprised. We were startled, but we know that disasters, while unpredictable, are inevitable. Disasters are built into the nuclear power system. The best engineers are fallible. (Anyone who drives a car or uses a personal computer knows this.) We can engineer nuclear reactors to be “reasonably” safe – but that costs a lot of money. That’s why ALL nuclear reactors leak “acceptable” levels of tritium – it is too expensive to capture all the tritium.

We also know

• While the probability of an accident may be low, the probability is very high that an accident, if it occurs, will be
• In Three Mile Island, in 1979, Chernobyl, in 1968, and Fukushima, in 2011, we have four melt-downs and one partial melt-down since the Price Anderson Act was first signed into law in 1956. That’s four melt-downs in 56 years. While it’s a too small to give a precise statistical measure, it offers empirical data to suggest a high probability of a catastrophic accident every 14 years.

In command economies, such as existed in the Soviet Union, or exists in Iran and North Korea, it is illegal – and dangerous – to question the government. In market economies, such as exist in the United States, Europe, and Japan, there are strong incentives to cut corners.

But back to Fukushima – following the disaster, nearly all of Japan’s 54 Nuclear Plants have been shut down due to pressure by the Japanese people.

The disaster deposited radioactive fallout on a semicircular area of Japan with a radius of 50 miles. It caused the permanent displacement of 160,000 people. An unknown amount of radioactive materials have been flushed into the Pacific Ocean.  TEPCO, the owners of the reactors, have a $100 Billion liability (that will probably be absorbed by Japanese citizens over the next 20 or 50 years).

So after Fukushima, the question that we ought to be asking is not: “Can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”

The question is: “HOW can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”

I will be speaking on Monday, March 5th, at 6:00pm, at the Unitarian Universalist Meeting House on West Front Street in Lincroft, NJ. This will be part of a series of discussions along a 250 mile walk from Oyster Creek, in Ocean County, NJ to Vermont, Yankee, in Vernon, Vermont.  I will make a statement similar to the talk at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, reported here.

A group of Japanese Buddhists, Fukushima eye-witnesses and US citizens will be walking over 250 miles from Oyster Creek to Indian Point to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants to bring awareness of the terrible risks of nuclear power. The “No More Fukushimas Peace Walk” is being led by Jun Yasuda.

Scheduled events open to the public:

Friday March 2nd, 7pm, “Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster for the U.S and continuing Japanese crisis”
Little Theatre, Georgian Court University, 900 Lakewood Ave, Lakewood N.J.

Speakers:

• Sachiko Komagata, P.T., Ph.D, and Associate Professor & Chair, Department of Holistic Health & Exercise Science
• Rachel Dawn Fudim-Davis, New Jersey Organizer, Food & Water Watch
• Jeff Tittel, Director of Sierra Club, NJ Chapter
• Sister Mary-Paula Cancienne, RSM, PhD.

Hosts:  Sister Mary Bilderback, Mary Paula Cancienne
For information Kasturi DasGupta, PhD 732-987-2336

Saturday, March 3, 6:00 pm,
Sky Walk Cafeteria, 2nd Floor, 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River, NJ (Connected to parking garage)
Speakers:

• Sky Sims, Sustainable energy specialist;
• Joseph Mangano, Executive Director of Radiation and Public Health Project;
• Ed M. Koziarski and Junko Kajino, Filmakers

For information Burt Gbur, 732-240-5107

Sunday, March 4th, 6:00 pm,
Murray Grove Retreat Conference Center, Lanoka-Harbor, NJ Church Lane and US Highway 9
Speakers:

• Willie DeCamp, Save Barnegat Bay,
• Greg Auriemma, Esq., Chair, Ocean County Sierra Club,
• Peter Weeks.

For information Matt Reid, 609-312-6798

Monday, March 5th, 6:00pm,
Unitarian Universalist Meeting House, West Front Street, Lincroft, NJ

Speakers:

• Larry Furman, “Beyond Fuel: The Transition from Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power to Sustainable Energy.”
• Japanese walkers share their post-Fukushima experiences in Japan

For Information:.  Elaine Held (732-774-3492).

Thursday, March 8, 6:00 pm
Puffin Foundation, 20 Puffin Way, Teaneck, N.J.

Speaker:

• Sidney Goodman, Author ‘Asleep At the Geiger Counter: Nuclear Destruction of the Planet and How to Stop It’, ISBN: 978-1-57733-107-0, available from Blue Dolphin Publishing, and elsewhere.

For information Jules Orkin, 201-566-8403

The walk will start at 10am on Saturday, March 3rd near the Oyster Creek area, and end at 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River. Starting times and places for March 4th and 5thwill also be announced on February 27th.
————————————————–
The mission of the Walk:  

A plea for the people of New Jersey, New York and New England to recognize the grave dangers that nuclear energy poses to our lives, property, and all life on the planet.

We walk together in love and solidarity for a nuclear free future, and a more just, sustainable, and compassionate world built on respect for all living beings.

JOIN THE WALK FOR AN HOUR OR A DAY.

Edith Gbur   732-240-5107
Christian Collins 413-320- 2856
Cathy Sims  732-280-2244

The latest news about Vermont Yankee – The leak of Cesium-137 is not a new leak.  From VermontBiz.com (click here) or the Burlington Free Press (here).

“In a statement issued yesterday, Vermont Yankee said that recent news reports have focused less on the tritium resolution and more on the other isotopes found in the soil at the plant. Despite the recent media coverage, Vermont Yankee said the presence of Cesium-137 and other radionuclides found in the soil at the plant is not new news. During the first week of March, the company shared soil sample results with the Vermont Department of Health indicating the existence of cesium in the soil.”

What’s worse than a nuclear power plant that leaks radioactive tritium?  A nuclear power plant that leaks radioactive cesium. The good news  that it’s not a new leak. Vermont Yankee ” has not had a fuel defect that could leak Cesium-137 since 2001.” Exactly how is this reassuring?

It’s “not dangerous” according to the NRC and the people who either lied or didn’t know about the tritium leaks.

In an unscientific web-based poll (here) WPTZ a Vermont television station affiliated with NBC, 5,487 or 53% of the responders said Vermont Yankee should be shut down now (3,387 / 33%) or when it scheduled to shut down in 2012 (2,100 / 20%). The question was “Do you think Vermont Yankee should continue operations beyond its scheduled shut down in 2012?

” The question was answered affirmatively by 4,506, or 44%.

The Vermont Dept. of Health provided a summary, here of tritium contamination, here.

While nuclear power provides a tremendous amount of power from a small amount of material, it is very expensive when done right. And when done wrong we have disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and business as usual like Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, Oyster Creek – the list of accidents is long for each operating nuclear power plant.

The economic externalities of nuclear and coal are very expensive in terms of health effects to people and the environment. As I’ve addressed elsewhere in this blog, solar, wind, and other renewable sources are safe and inexpensive, and the economic externalities are beneficial.

The only good news is that Vermont, in the spirit of Ethan Allen, is pointing the U. S. in the direction we need to go, vis a vis nuclear power.

Vermont Yankee, on the Connecticut River

The Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to close Vermont Yankee.  While proponents of nuclear power claim that the plants can be run safely and economically, Entergy, the Louisiana company that operates the plant, is now known to be running Vermont Yankee AT A LOSS!

Economics is not the issue. The Vermont Senate isn’t interested in the profitability of an enterprise. What is at issue is whether Vermont Yankee can be operated safely and whether Entergy can be trusted to operate Vermont Yankee safely. By a vote of 26 to 4, the Vermont Senate answered those questions with a resounding “NO!”

An Entergy Executive responsible for Vermont Yankee testified under oath to two state panels that there were no buried pipes at Vermont Yankee that could leak tritium.  This testimony is now known to be false. The Entergy executive has been relieved of his responsibilities. (Click  here.)  According to NPR (here) “Entergy Nuclear chief executive J. Wayne Leonard did not identify the official by name. But he described the executive relieved of his duties in a way that could only apply to Vice President Jay Thayer.

State Senator Peter Shumlin, Democrat, Wyndham, asked “What’s worse, a company that won’t tell you the truth or a company’s that’s operating your aging nuclear power plant on the banks of the Connecticut River and doesn’t know that they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking? And they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed. Neither is very comforting.”

Vermont State Senator Randolph Brock, Republican, St. Albans, who in the past has supported Vermont Yankee, said “If the board of directors and management of Entergy were thoroughly infiltrated by antinuclear activists, I do not think they could have done a better job of destroying their own case.”

Entergy claims that no tritium has turned up in drinking water, but that claim must be verified. The Connecticut River, which flows past Vermont Yankee, probably should be checked for Tritium.

Officials at Entergy, the Louisiana company that owns Vermont Yankee, are trying to sell Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and three other nuclear power stations in the north-east.

It is a similar design to the Oyster Creek nuclear power station, in New Jersey, operated by Exelon, which is also known to be leaking tritium.

Michael Wald covered the story for The New York Times.  Guy Raz covered the story at NPR.

Vermont Yankee, Courtesy of US NRC

There’s no question that nuclear power will be part of our energy supply mix for the foreseeable future.  The United States has 104 nuclear power plants in operation at present, according to Matthew Wald on the Green Inc. blog of The New York Times, relying on NRC data. Incidents like this – in which a corporate official makes a false statement with serious health and safety implications – give us pause.

Which is worse – that the official was mistaken, and not aware that Vermont Yankee had water pipes which could leak – or that he knew and lied?

Incompetence or dishonesty, it would seem.  Nuclear power can’t be a safe part of our energy future on those terms. Entergy is responsible for knowing everything there is to know about the plants it operates. A material and incorrect statement – under oath, no less – seems explainable only by three hypotheses: (1) the official lied; (2) the official failed to make himself aware of the plant, in which case the question shouldn’t have been answered; (3) the official was misinformed by subordinates.

If the first explanation is correct, perjury charges are, of course, in order. If the second or the third – Entergy hasn’t met its obligations to mind the store.

From the Associated Press via NPR: Top Vermont Yankee Official ‘Relieved Of Duties’:

A top official at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was permanently relieved of his duties and placed on leave, the plant owner’s CEO said Tuesday, less than a week after Gov. Jim Douglas demanded management changes over misstatements made to state officials.

Entergy Nuclear chief executive J. Wayne Leonard did not identify the official by name. But he described the executive relieved of his duties in a way that could only apply to Vice President Jay Thayer.

Douglas’ urging for management shake-up followed revelations that plant officials misled state regulators and lawmakers by saying last year the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry radioactive tritium.

“In May 2009, an Entergy executive testified in a hearing on the state’s report that he didn’t think we had any such pipes, but he would get back to them,” Leonard said. “He did not get back to them. He has issued a public apology and made clear that he failed to provide full and complete information, either on the witness stand or by failing to get back to them.

“He has been permanently relieved of his duties in Vermont, and placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the full investigation,” Leonard added.

Calls to Thayer’s home were not immediately returned Tuesday.

On Jan. 7, it was announced that tritium, an isotope said to cause cancer if ingested in high amounts, had been found in elevated levels in a groundwater monitoring well at Vermont Yankee. Plant and federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have maintained tritium has not appeared in groundwater at concentrations that pose any threat to public health or safety.

On Tuesday, plant spokesman Robert Williams said the highest reading yet of tritium had been reported in a monitoring well at the Vernon reactor. The latest reading is four times the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit for tritium in drinking water.

Leonard, speaking Tuesday about the company’s fourth-quarter 2009 results to shareholders and analysts in a conference call, gave an update on Entergy Nuclear’s plan to spin off a new company to own Vermont Yankee and four other northern nuclear stations.

Leonard raised the possibility that the plan could go ahead without including Vermont Yankee if the state fails soon to approve the spinoff; he said a lack of approval in Vermont might merely move completion of the deal from this spring to later in the year.

Vermont Yankee is not profitable for Entergy under the terms under its current deal to sell power to Vermont’s electric utilities, Leonard said. The company is hoping to operate the plant for 20 years past the expiration of its current license in 2012 and says it will seek higher prices from the utilities then.

See alsoMatthew L. Wald, Vermont Power Plant Continues to Leak Radiation.

Technicians seeking the source of a leak of radioactive tritium at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant have found concentrations in groundwater there that were three times higher than what was discovered last week, a plant spokesman said Monday.

Tritium was measured at 70,500 picocuries per liter, which the spokesman, Rob Williams, characterized as a low level. The highest level discovered so far “does not present a risk to public health or safety whatsoever,” he said in a statement.

But it does put Vermont Yankee over the threshold at which it is obligated to make a report to federal regulators within 30 days, and say what it will do about the problem. The limit, 30,000 picocuries, was crossed on Sunday.

]]> http://popularlogistics.com/2010/02/entergy-official-relieved-of-duties-for-false-statement-abou-t-vermont-yankee-nuclear-plant/feed/ 3